Re: [Webmacro-devel] Gump build issue...

[Eric R. <eb...@tc...>]

On Oct 20, 2003, at 3:25 PM, Brian Goetz wrote:

>> On Oct 20, 2003, at 3:24 AM, Endre St=F8lsvik wrote:
>>> Why would one want to be removed from Gump, really? To become less
>>> available?
>>
>> Having another entity broadcast that we don't build under their=20
>> system (maybe we don't build at all, haven't checked CVS in awhile)=20=

>> just doesn't seem like a good idea.  Esp. when that entity is our #1=20=

>> competitor.
>
> I think this is kind of backwards reasoning.  I think that being=20
> supported under Gump is a good thing which increases WM's reach.  I=20
> don't buy the "competitor" argument.  I think the Gump folks were=20
> really trying to be helpful and we were silly to tell them to go away.=20=

>  It makes us look like an island, and no project can afford to be an=20=

> island.

I'm not wanting to make WM an island.  But I do want to minimize noise=20=

and additional responsibility.  Especially that which comes from the=20
group that told us to "fuck off" a long time ago.  Currently, I don't=20
even have the time to checkout WM from CVS and see if it can build from=20=

the command-line, let alone the time to investigate why Gump (a project=20=

I've never used, on a system I can't directly access or know anything=20
about) can't build it.

Seriously, how many people on this list use Gump?  If SourceForge had=20
some automated build system that the majority of SF projects were=20
using, sure, that'd be great.  But Gump?  Please.

eric